Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique

[Last Fearner]

Here are my responses to some of the individual comments in this thread.

the 'start', i.e., OP, of the thread... was in large part an ad hominem attack on another member, rather than a rational confrontation of the throroughly researched results—

No, exile, this thread was not started as an ad homineminemem attack on anyone (including you). :ultracool It was an opportunity for me to explain my position about a subject that you brought up in another thread - - that's all. You state your position, and I state mine. I don't criticize you for having a different point of view, and all I ask is that you don't criticize me because I disagree with you.

Often times, it is not so much what you say, exile, but how you say it. I am confident in my opinion and beliefs, the same as you are, and it is not because I am a naive, Kool-Aid drinker who just accepts a romanticized version because I like it, or because “my instructor told me so.” I believe you are an intelligent, educated person, and I give you credit for your dedication to historical research, but please give me a little more credit than that.

The OP was a snipe in my opinion,...

No SageGhost, the OP was not a “snipe,” although I have been on snipe hunts before!

The thing that I objected to is that within the previous thread by F2F, exile made a bold statement that TKD is based in Karate, of which I disagree. Rather than let this slip by for all future readers to accept as an undisputed fact, I replied with my own similar comment that TKD was not based in Karate. I would have been satisfied to leave it at that.... however, exile felt it was necessary to violate the rules of the forum and derail F2F's thread with a long diatribe about why his position was correct.

Exile further made a comment that those who believe contrary to his position (as supported by research) “reflects rather poorly on the overall credibility of those making such claim.” I think this type of comment is unnecessary, it is aside from the actual debate of the issue, and I take it as both a snipe and a disrespectful attack on me, personally.

 

[Last Fearner]

I find it peculiar that the Korean name for their home country is Hanguk - Han = the people we commonly think of when referring to "the Chinese", and Guk = People/Person. Do we have yet another smoking gun ?

Nice point, SG!

Actually, this is the kind of misunderstanding that I believe leads to the misconstrued notions of Taekwondo's origins. When people believe they have things understood, and draw incorrect conclusions (no offense, SageGhost), they think they have a “smoking gun.” The term “Han” in Hanguk has nothing to do with the Han of China's Han Dynasty, as in “Hanja” (Chinese writing) or the Han River. Those are a different character in Hanja than Hanguk.

“Han” is another way to write the number one, like “Ha Na” in Korean. “Guk” means nation or country. Thus, “Hanguk” means “Number One Country” or “First Nation” which, to the Korean people, is their own country of Korea. Sorry, it has nothing to do with China - - no smoking gun here.

You have 30 years in TKD, that is very impressive, but that does not make you a historian - and the issue here is history.

Actually, the issue here is the definition of what Taekwondo is, and what is at its core, its base, and foundation. You must first understand the art, in order to trace its path in history. If you seek the history of a butterfly, but do not understand that it once existed as a caterpillar, you will likely assume that the cocoon is the origin of its birth. The butterfly was, in fact, the caterpillar, but is given a new name when it emerges with wings and can fly. Taekwondo was all of Korean Martial Art history, culture, and warrior code prior to the cocoon of Japanese occupation, but was given the new name after it was liberated, and set free to grow and follow its own path.

I would love to find out about old, indigenous Korean martial arts, but TKD is not one of them.

Your right, Taekwondo is not one of them, Taekwondo is all of them!

Where is the ancient korean connection that so many people are in such a hurry to claim?
...What actual *techniques* did the soldiers contribute to the style?
As for the kicking, the koreans have always favored foot games within their own culture, perhaps this was an example of the style growing and forming its own korean flavor? I look forward to hearing from you.

As a National Martial Art, the term defines whatever Martial Combat existed throughout all of Korea's history, whether we know the exact technical content, or can trace each step of its transition to modern times or not.

As for any direct link to pre-occupation technical content that might be defined as a catalyst for today's Taekwondo, you mentioned the kicking that Koreans have always favored. Whether they were “foot games,” “stomping techniques of self defense, or the remnants of an early combat system of kicking and other fighting skills, the mere knowledge and awareness of this concept has caused the Koreans to return to their earlier roots. The Kwan era Taekwondo is unavoidably brought into the mix, but as a supplement to their core national art.

Ah, but TKD *was* derived from karate - the original katas were the same and a lot of the kibon is STILL the same.

Here again, is the confusion of identity when defining “Taekwondo” by the “kata” and other peripherals that the Kwan practitioners studied. Define Karate by Kata if you wish, but define Taekwondo by Poomsae, Hyung, Tul, or any similarity to Karate Kata, and you clearly are not fully understanding native Korean Taekwondo.

 

[Last Fearner]

what I find offensive is the suggestion that the processes of gaining an understanding of the past that have existed for at least 150 years are somehow less than hearsay and gossip garnered at a late night drinking session (that's what it was for all I know, I have no evidence to the contrary).

Only some of the information I learned over the past three decades were discussed during late night “drinking sessions.” On the other hand, when Iceman and I attended the USCDKA National conference in 2006, and the well respected Chung Do Kwan Grandmaster Hae Man Park presented a long slide-show of his own personal photos from the early Kwan era, and personally narrated the history he experienced, I don't classify these as “less than hearsay and gossip.”

When I was a color belt student in the 70's, I thought it was quite a privilege, and special opportunity to gain advanced knowledge and insights when Grandmasters such as Haeng Ung Lee of the ATA would hang around after testings and tournaments, and talk to us students. As a young Black Belt, I felt honored to spend more private, quality time with him. When I moved on from the ATA, and became a Master Instructor with the Jidokwan, my circle of resources expanded greatly.

Often times, after a tournament's end, Korean Grandmasters would join Black Belts and students at a restaurant for social hour. After that, American instructors would go their way, and the Koreans would go to a more confidential Korean restaurant. I was often invited, and found that I was the only non-Asian present. After hours, we would move on to a Korean bar until 3 or 4 in the morning. With many, many high ranking Korean Grandmasters drinking and socializing, I often received close personal advice on the art, philosophy, and history of Taekwondo (particularly the low-down on specific Kwans).

Some of the National events I attended wound up with the top Koreans who came from out of town sharing a motel suite or business conference room, and discussing Taekwondo business, and future plans for the sharing of Korean Taekwondo, and Olympic development until the wee hours of the morning. I was included in some of the discussions until they would begin talking only in Korean, and I would fall asleep on one of the beds. These were not drunken sessions, nor were they “my instructor says so.” I was privy to the confidential business discussions, and trusted with the personal insights of many different key figures in Taekwondo.

However, this was my own personal experience that shaped many of my views, so take it for what you will. I know that there are other masters from the U.S (like Master Stoker) and in other countries who have had similar experiences. We don't believe everything we are told blindly, but we do learn to value past experiences, and can piece together a better picture with more pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Last Fearner]

History is not about unverified statements. It is about evidence.
...That is history. It is evidence garnered through research and investigation.

I disagree. History is what it is, whether anyone witnessed it, or can verify it or not. Evidence is merely the confirmation of history for those who were not present when it occurred. Research, investigation, and evidence does not change history, just people's belief in what actually occurred.

Peer-review. A group of college students joining hands and patting each other on the back is not peer-review.

I don't recall saying anything about “joining hands,” but the fact is that this is “peer-review” - - that's why they call it “peer-review.” It is not on the same level of expertise, qualifications, and credibility of scientific and academic peer-review, but my point was that it is the same concept on a different level. Meaning, you have to trust the level of knowledge of those doing the review about the specific subject you are discussing. An expert in Martial Art does not equate an expert in history, nor does an expert historian equate an enlightened Martial Art Master who understands the subject enough to define what it is, in order to look for the evidence that supports the right argument (failing to find evidence of fence posts).

History is a pursuit of truth, verifiable through evidence.

Again, I disagree! History is what happened - pure and simple. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and an earthquake destroys any evidence that the tree ever existed, this does not mean that the tree never fell. History is not the pursuit of truth - - the pursuit of truth is the verification of history. History does not change simply because we can not verify what happened through evidence.

Saying something is true and not supporting that statement undermines one's entire position.

I disagree. “not supporting” a statement does not undermine one's position, nor does it change the truth. It just prevents us from verifying the facts, and makes it difficult to convince others. I know of many events in my own life that I can not support with evidence, but that does not make them any less true, and me saying that they are true does not undermine my position.

Let me finish with a quote that I think is relevant to the study of history,
Quote:
There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth - not going all the way, and not starting. - Siddhartha Gautama

I will go along with the two mistakes presented here, but I disagree that there are only two mistakes. A third mistake is following the wrong path. One can chase false evidence all the way to the end, or get the correct evidence about the wrong subject, and make the mistake of thinking they have the correct answer.

 

[Last Fearner]

I had to laugh when I read the comment about peer review in the OP, and I confess that my first thought was, hoo boy, have you ever put your foot in it... because the peer reviewers for Journal of Asian Martial Arts are among the top professional MA/cultural historians of their areas in the scholarly world. The current editorial board, from which the referees for JAMA submissions are chosen, includes the following:
Dakin Burdick, Ph.D.; ...He holds a fourth dan in TKD, a third dan in Hapkido, a 2nd dan in iado
Paul Cote, MS, Ph.D.; ...He is ranked Yondan (4th Dan) in Isshin-ryu Karate and Kobudo by the IWKA; certified as an Instructor (Shidoin) ...was promoted to Sandan (3rd Dan). He has also practiced and researched the Northern Chinese internal martial arts of xing-yi quan, bagua zhang, and taiji quan for the past 20 years.
Barbara Davis, MA; responsible for China/Taijiquan, author of The Taijiquan Classics: an Annotated Translation; editor, The Taijiquan Journal.
Karl Friday, Ph.D; responsible for Japanese martial arts. He has spent a number of years living, training, and doing research in Japan; he presently holds the menkyo kaiden license and is a certified shihan in Kashima-Shinryu.
Michael Maliszewski, Ph.D.; responsible for Medicine/Cross-cultural studies. Instructor at Harvard Medical School.
Willy Pieter, Ph.D.; responsible for Korean MAs/Sports Science.

No, exile, I did not put my foot in it. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. While I acknowledge the advanced education of these historians, researchers, and experts of yours, I also note that you present, as a part of their credentials, their “martial” experience. You list their ranks as evidence of their expertise and qualifications to define Taekwondo and tell the world what its origin is, however as a 6th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo, with more than 40 years experience myself, I am less impressed than you by credentials of 2nd, 3rd and 4th dans with 20 years or less experience in the Martial Art.

This is not intended as a rank debate, and I agree that high rank does not equate historical knowldege, nor is it evidence of being right about anything, however you hold up Dakin Burdick, a fourth dan in Taekwondo, as an expert to me, a 6th Dan. While the Ph.D is impressive, and lends credibility and academic reliability, it does little to convince me that these people really understand the subject of Taekwondo in order to be held up as authorities on this particular topic. Since many of the experts listed are low ranking black belts in non-Korean systems, where is their “peer-review” qualifications for a Korean Martial Art debate? If a room full of legitimate 8th and 9th Degree Korean Grandmasters were debating the definition and origin of Taekwondo, I would have to sit silently to the side as a junior who could not compare to the level of understanding in most cases.

When I commented on college peer review, I intentionally drew a comparison of those college students who were on the same level of education as those they were reviewing. Even college professors, with Ph.D's, who have only a small amount of Martial Art experience, are only capable of understanding the in-depth philosophy, and definition of Korean Taekwondo as far as their rank, years of experience, and personal resources allow. There is nothing that indicates that their Ph.D's give them any more insight than myself, or any 3rd or 4th Dan student of mine.

Some participants here have misunderstood my references to rank, and longevity in Taekwondo as though I am suggesting an automatic knowledge of history. I acknowledge that neither rank, nor time in training guarantees a more in-depth study of history, but I do feel that when rank is issued properly, according to an individual's actual understanding the subject above and beyond the skills to perform the art, then genuine higher ranking Masters have more credibility for interpreting and defining the art in question, in my opinion.

As to the weight that “peer-reviewed” research carries, keep in mind that the scientific, medical, and other academic fields are constatly revising their findings. If they publish a new finding that contradicts last years out-dated information, then what are we to say about the “peer-reviewed” experts of last year? If I were to have challenged them a year or two ago with the same contrary knowledge that we now have, they would argue, “but our findings are peer-reviewed by experts in the field.”

Think about it - - “The Earth is flat” was peer-reviewed by other experts. “Blood Letting” to cure diseases was “peer-reviewed” by fellow experts in the medical field. Virtually everything we know today, replaced someone's “peer-reviewed” incorrect knowledge of the past.

 

[Last Fearner]

f2f, I'm afraid it doesn't wash. ...
General Choi claims that his calligraphy teacher told him that Korean martial arts came from Tae Kyon? Once we put that claim under the microscope it cuts as much ice as a soap hacksaw.
So do the cave paintings, the mythical Hwa Rang Super Warriors and all the rest.

What microscope is that? Has the personal account of General Choi's T'ae kyon past been absolutely disproven, or is it just that doubts have been raised, and it can not be confirmed. Where is it proven that the cave paintings did not reflect what was occurring in Korea as a Martial Art system, and who has labeled the Hwarang as a myth?

...The person Choi identifies as his taekyon instructor turns out to be, very likely, an imaginary friend...
...The point is, there's contemporary evidence, and there's good evidence that by the time the Japanese began actively suppressing the MAs in Korea, the MAs they were suppressing largely consisted of the imported Japanese MAs judo and jiujitsu.

Exile, for a person who is a stickler for “evidence” to support his position, sir, you seem to present some not so air-tight arguments. You argue Choi's T'ae Kyon teacher was “very likely” an imaginary friend? This seems weak to call a person a liar on “likely” evidence from those who were not present at that time and place.

You also say that by the time of the Japanese occupation, the suppressed Martial Art “largely” consisted of imported Japanese MAs. This reminds me of when the whether man say that the whether will be “mostly cloudy.” Does this not also mean that it will be “partly sunny?” If the suppressed Martial Art in Korea “largely” consisted of Japanese MA, then does this not imply that some portion was native, and does not the term “suppressed” differ from eradicated? Do you not also agree that at least a few Taekyon students survived the occupation? The fact is that the “kicking method” existed before the Japanese influence, and it survived until after - - however little the number of survivors matters none for the extraction of a core technical content and philosophy.

Nonetheless, what Gm. Kim suggest in his January Black Belt interview—
today the truth is coming out. Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories - claim their art is 2000 years old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and lineage, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial arts being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea (1909-1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught.

So this expert says that “indigenous martial arts” existed before the Japanese occupation, but were later gone, and replaced by other countries arts. As I think about the feasibility of this notion, I wonder about my own life. I am 48 years old. as a child, I studied wrestling, Judo, and Karate from age 5 up to my teen years, then switched to Taekwondo. If the U.S. was occupied by a foreign country starting 35 years ago today, I would have been 13 years old.

If I stopped all of my training at age 13, and was liberated tomorrow, I doubt that I would forget what I learned during those earlier years. If I had trained in another Martial Art during those 35 years (like I have done in Taekwondo) I am certain that I could cease doing Taekwondo, and go back to the system and approach I studied before. If there were others older then I (60, 70, and 80 years old) certainly they would be able to recall Martial Art training they did from age 5 or 10 until the age of 20, 30, or even 40 years old. I don't see how all of Korea's indigenous Martial Art would have been totally eradicated simply because an occupying army told the people not to practice it for 35 years.

But I think that that's where this sense of disappointment I was talking about arises from. There is this huge wedge of time that separates the really ancient warrior culture of ancient Korea.... from the corresponding 'chivalric' era in Japan.
...And that's really probably way too far back.
...My own sense is, it's just too long ago.

I believe that most mainstream Korean Grandmasters are not concerned about time, nor lineage, but rather cultural heritage and philosophical understanding. Taekyon, Hwarang and Subak existed, and it was their native history. The details of exact techniques and the structure of training methods or written training manuals are not as important as the core beliefs and shared philosophies of their ancestors, and a time gap does not prevent them from understanding this.

My critical point, the essential thing, is that the combat technique set of Okinawan karate is still there, in the TKD hyungs, which—as Kwan Jang puts it so well—represent respliced Okinawan kata sequences. In other words, as a guide to application, the Okinawan/Japanese origins of TKD guarantee that we have a kind of off-the-shelf set of bunkai incorporating the strategic principles and effective tactical resources of O/J karate.

Since this seems to be your “critical point” and “essential thing,” exile, I can see where your confusion rests about what Taekwondo is, and where it originates. You focus everything on Hyungs, Japanese Kata, and this obsession with bunkai. While Taekwondo teaches practical application of Poomsae techniques and sequences, the forms themselves, the diagrams they follow, and even their implied application are not at the heart of what Taekwondo is. Taekwondo's core and historical origins are built around something other than borrowed kata concepts and Japanese bunkai. What Taekwondo is based in, comes from something other than, and much older than kata.

My main interest in TKD is street defence, and in practice—as an effective combat system—I think the optimal application of TKD will probably look a lot like an application of Shotokan karate....

Here I believe you are absolutely mistaken. Practical application of TKD, in real life self defense, is much different than any other system of Martial Art, including Shotokan Karate. The application of Korean Taekwondo (not necessarily Kwan era developments) would be quite different from any variation of Karate.

The purpose of delving into the historical connections of TKD with its O/J karate ancestor is not about 'what happened with other people'. It is to help recover some important technical assets that are latent in the TKD hyung sets, in particular the combat-effective bunkai that are being rediscovered by our by now relatively distant cousins in Shotokan karate as part of the revival of careful, realistic bunkai study and training.

I think your obsession, and deep interest in Japanese bunkai leads you down a misguided path in regards to understanding Taekwondo, exile, and your attachment to the Kata / hyung connection clouds your judgment about Taekwondo's core concepts as well as its historical origins. This is not to say that practical application of Taekwondo techniques is not important, but Korean Taekwondo derives this knowledge and practices it in methods which differ from Kata practice. Practical application exists in modern Korean Taekwondo Poomsae, but not to the central focus and emphasis as Japanese Karate Kata, nor should it.

Well, the OPer was ... the one who began the thread, in the course of which he insinuated that the vast weight of historical evidence carried out by some of the best researchers in MAs .... was connected with my relative juniority in TKD

No, exile, any reference I make to your juniority in TKD, sir, has nothing to do with the vast weight of historical evidence about the Kwan era. It is my belief that those with higher degrees of legitimate rank (not the bogus masters that we have all seen), actually have a better comprehension of the subject of Taekwondo.

It is my personal opinion that your academic education might be vast and the experts you often quote are legitimate historians, but I believe that your lack of years and advanced rank in Taekwondo prevent you from having gained an enlightened insight as to what Taekwondo really is, and what the term means beyond a limited definition. No disrespect intended, but my experience as a teacher for 30 years is that most color belt student don't grasp the concept of Taekwondo the same as a Black Belt, nor a Black Belt the same as a life-long teacher, Master or Grandmaster of this art.

Exile, you and I just disagree on the definition of the term Taekwondo, and what it encompasses. Not that you are wrong, or I am wrong, but that we are talking about two different things, and it really should just be left at that, in my opinion.

This is the end of my lengthy response to the many replies of this controversial thread. I hope I have not bored the readers too greatly! I leave you all to rip it apart, and do what you will. I have training and teaching to tend to.

안녕히게세요
Annyeonghigeseyo, :asian:
Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

 

[terryl965]

Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

Glad to see you are back with us and I personaaly would like to thank you for taking the time to answer everyone question and explaining your thoughts. I would hope we can all move forward on this subject with the respect all have shown so far.

Let me ask you a quick question if TKD was brought together in the fifties when all the Kwans was united how can it roots be TKD? I can see Okinawa Karate or Taekyon, but TKD roots started when they all came together under one umbella.

This question is not just directed to LF all can answer.

Next question General Choi was not the only one that help with this process, who would you say was side by side with him to make this as one? Who was behind the doors pushing for this to come as it did?

Thank you all in advance and one thing I can truely say TKD is more than an Art it is a way of life.

 

[Errant108]

Warrior monks? IIRC, it was mainly peasants led by a group of government officials (mainly Confucian scholars rather than warrior monks) that contributed most to the fighting force that was operating inland.

The role of Buddhist monks during the Imjinwoeran cannot be underestimated. Despite Buddhism being persecuted at the hands of the Confucian government just before Hideyoshi's invasion, vast groups of monks who had taken refuge in the mountains came to the rescue of the nation. The majority of the armies were armed with spears and Gyeom, a sickle-like weapon, similar to the Okinawan kama.

Many great masters distinguished themselves as generals, leading small armies of monks against larger Japanese forces. The first victory when to Kihodang, who recaptured Chongju fort from the Japanese, using a force of only 600 monks. He himself served his master Sosan-daesa, the Great Monk of the Western Mountain, who could be considered the Commander in Chief of the monastic forces.

Another one of Sosan-daesa's disciples, Samyung-daesa, gathered an army of 800 musaeng (warrior monks). After saving the temples on Kumgangsan, he rejoined his master to take the offense against the Japanese. Samyung-daesa, not content to lead from the rear, was at the head of the army when they recaptured Pyongyang. When the Japanese returned, it was Samyungdang who surrounded Kato Kiyomasa, and actually led infiltration parties to gather intelligence inside the Japanese camp. Using this intelligence, he was able to sue for peace between the two nations.

It was during these talks that he distinguished himself even further. Facing Kato Kiyomasa, he informed the warlord that the crown jewel of the Choson dynasty was Kato's head, and the people of Choson would not have peace until that head was cut off. Word of his audacity spread through the Japanese ranks, and he was given the name Solbo by the Japanese, which means Jewel. The negotiations succeeded, and Samyung-daesa secured the release of 300 Korean POWs.

It is not a coincidence that Confucian rule decreased martial strength in Korea and persecuted Buddhism at the same time. Despite the persecutions suffered, musaeng rose up to help the nation in its time of need while the Confucians continued their intercene power struggles. While the Confucians worked to oppress the people, the monks served their people and nation, rather than trying to increase their power.

 

[Errant108]

What microscope is that? Has the personal account of General Choi's T'ae kyon past been absolutely disproven, or is it just that doubts have been raised, and it can not be confirmed. Where is it proven that the cave paintings did not reflect what was occurring in Korea as a Martial Art system, and who has labeled the Hwarang as a myth?

The majority of modern scholarship IN KOREAN, has asserted that at best the Hwarang were a youth training corp, akin to the boy scouts. The most unflattering scholarship adds that there are major overtones of what we today would consider homosexuality and pederasty to the Hwa Rang. They were not a warrior class in any way, shape, or form. Further, they died out more than a thousand years before Taegwondo developed, and no lineage of their technique or manual existed, therefore there can be no attribution of the Hwarang having any influence on any of the post-Occupation KMA, other than in the form of "inspiration".

As for Taegyeon's influence on Taegwondo, it has been repeated over and over from Song on down that none of the founders of the Gwan had any Taegyeon experience. None of them have been tied to any legitimate Taegyeon instructors, and more importantly, Taegyeon technique cannot be found in Taegwondo. Taegyeon has very distinctive movement, application, and mechanics. The commonly pointed to Taegwondo kicks arose out of modern Korean ingenuity rather than any sort of actual cross-pollination.

Scholars at Yongin University and others in Korea have been doing a great deal in the last decade to peal back government supported propoganda in order to promote the true history to Taegwondo. None of them were able to tie any Taegwondo practitioners with any pre-Occupation KMA with any historical accuracy.

Taekyon, Hwarang and Subak existed, and it was their native history. The details of exact techniques and the structure of training methods or written training manuals are not as important as the core beliefs and shared philosophies of their ancestors, and a time gap does not prevent them from understanding this.

The time gap does present a major impediment. I am not able to understand what others did in the past without some sort of reference to it. Subak died out centuries ago. No manuals exist, no pictures, no references. We don't even know if it was an actual systematized combative system, or just a term describing hitting people with your hands.

The Hwarang, as I said, were a youth training corp. We know they trained in methods of combat, and that some went on to distinguish themselves in military service, but there is no historical documentation as to what their martial practices actually were. There is no transmission of technique or method through the centuries, and if there were, it would pre-date the Japanese koryu, some of the most easily documented martial arts in Asia.

Taegyeon exists, its history has been documented, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to Taegwondo in structure, technique, or application. At most, its kicking methods were an inspiration for early Taegwondo practitioners who had no training in Taegyeon.

What Taekwondo is based in, comes from something other than, and much older than kata...This is not to say that practical application of Taekwondo techniques is not important, but Korean Taekwondo derives this knowledge and practices it in methods which differ from Kata practice.

What is that? If you have documentation supporting this supposition, I would love to read it.

It is my personal opinion that your academic education might be vast and the experts you often quote are legitimate historians, but I believe that your lack of years and advanced rank in Taekwondo prevent you from having gained an enlightened insight as to what Taekwondo really is, and what the term means beyond a limited definition. No disrespect intended, but my experience as a teacher for 30 years is that most color belt student don't grasp the concept of Taekwondo the same as a Black Belt, nor a Black Belt the same as a life-long teacher, Master or Grandmaster of this art.

This is a combination of two fallacies.

Fallacies are flawed logic used to circumvent arguing based in logic and fact.

You use the fallacy of ad hominum to tell Exile that he cannot argue with you because he lacks understanding. You justify your argument by using the fallacy of appeal to authority, using your rank to solidify your position.

Yet you do not offer any information.

What are these concepts of which you speak that Exile's lack of experience and rank do not allow him to grasp?

I could just as easily tell you that I have had Korean grandmasters of greater experience tell me that your position is contradicted, but without fact and logic what is the point?

 

[exile]

The majority of modern scholarship IN KOREAN, has asserted that at best the Hwarang were a youth training corp, akin to the boy scouts. The most unflattering scholarship adds that there are major overtones of what we today would consider homosexuality and pederasty to the Hwa Rang. They were not a warrior class in any way, shape, or form. Further, they died out more than a thousand years before Taegwondo developed, and no lineage of their technique or manual existed, therefore there can be no attribution of the Hwarang having any influence on any of the post-Occupation KMA, other than in the form of "inspiration".

As for Taegyeon's influence on Taegwondo, it has been repeated over and over from Song on down that none of the founders of the Gwan had any Taegyeon experience. None of them have been tied to any legitimate Taegyeon instructors, and more importantly, Taegyeon technique cannot be found in Taegwondo. Taegyeon has very distinctive movement, application, and mechanics. The commonly pointed to Taegwondo kicks arose out of modern Korean ingenuity rather than any sort of actual cross-pollination.

Scholars at Yongin University and others in Korea have been doing a great deal in the last decade to peal back government supported propoganda in order to promote the true history to Taegwondo. None of them were able to tie any Taegwondo practitioners with any pre-Occupation KMA with any historical accuracy.



The time gap does present a major impediment. I am not able to understand what others did in the past without some sort of reference to it. Subak died out centuries ago. No manuals exist, no pictures, no references. We don't even know if it was an actual systematized combative system, or just a term describing hitting people with your hands.

The Hwarang, as I said, were a youth training corp. We know they trained in methods of combat, and that some went on to distinguish themselves in military service, but there is no historical documentation as to what their martial practices actually were. There is no transmission of technique or method through the centuries, and if there were, it would pre-date the Japanese koryu, some of the most easily documented martial arts in Asia.

Taegyeon exists, its history has been documented, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to Taegwondo in structure, technique, or application. At most, its kicking methods were an inspiration for early Taegwondo practitioners who had no training in Taegyeon.



What is that? If you have documentation supporting this supposition, I would love to read it.



This is a combination of two fallacies.

Fallacies are flawed logic used to circumvent arguing based in logic and fact.

You use the fallacy of ad hominum to tell Exile that he cannot argue with you because he lacks understanding. You justify your argument by using the fallacy of appeal to authority, using your rank to solidify your position.

Yet you do not offer any information.

What are these concepts of which you speak that Exile's lack of experience and rank do not allow him to grasp?

I could just as easily tell you that I have had Korean grandmasters of greater experience tell me that your position is contradicted, but without fact and logic what is the point?

Wow...what else can be said? Errant has said it all, as plainly and straightforwardly as possible!

I would just add that my comment on General Choi's putative taekyon teacher is based on the investigations of Robert Young, whose thorough, detailed and documented history of Taekyon in the 1993 volume of Journal of Asian Martial Arts, makes it clear—based on his own research and that of others who tried to identify this individual, that there is a very suspicious lack of evidence for his existence. And as Stuart A(nslow) has noted in his recent book on ITF TKD forms, General Choi is on record, in print, as contradicting himself royally on the subject of the relationship between Japanese karate and TKD, based on statements he made in three separate interviews in Combat magazine between 1960 and 1990.

As for the comments about my juniority not giving access to certain key concepts (which, if I had possessed them, would have enabled me to look back a century or more in time, an ability apparently restricted to advanced black belts (although not still more advanced black belts, or major Kwan leaders such as Gm. Kim, who disagree with the OP :lol)... well, I think, as I've said before, that most MT members recognize where that kind of tactic comes from. In poker, when you have lousy cards in your hand, you see if you can persuade the other players to fold by acting in a way that you hope will fool them into thinking you actually have a good hand; in other words, you posture a certain way and hope to be convincing. It's called bluffing. The comments about me personally are nothing more than that, so far as the historical record of TKD is concerned. I think it's clear to the MT community by now—after so very many posts by the OPer which are full of such comments, but no appeal to documented facts, to contemporary or ancient records, to checkable information, and so on—that the whole content of his latest post is essentially bluff, and I appreciate very much Errant's carefully contructed post nailing it down as such.

 

[Errant108]

1. Tribes of central and northern Asia are estimated to have migrated down into the peninsula now known as Korea, as far back as 30,000 B.C. From around 5,000 to 1,000 B.C., new Asian migration bleded with the aboriginal tribes. Over the next 3,000 years, they became a distinct culture in an area they called Choseon - “Land of the morning calm.”

This was not Joseon, but rather Gojoseon.

2. Between the 1st Century B.C., and the 1st century A.D., specific boundaries were established for three main Kingdoms of Choseon. Armies were formed, and soldiers were trained to protect those territories. Some of this training included unarmed hand-to-hand combat and grappling such as Subak.

Please cite sources for this, preferably sources in Korean.

Also note that Subak did not mean grappling, but rather hand striking.

3. Over the next six centuries, Choseon's warriors fought off invasions, and the three Kingdoms united as the Silla Dynasty. At this time, the young boys were trained to blossom into manhood as “Hwarang knights” with combat skills, refined social education, and a well-documented code of ethics that became the heart of their native Martial Art. According to this philosophy, Martial Art is more than just specific fighting techniques, and is more of a way of life, set of values, and a moral conviction that upholds a warrior code.

The Hwarang were not knights. They were a group of noble youth selected for their beauty. They had no authority, and were not a warrior corp in any shape or form. The Pungwoltto was an organization dedicated to training the youth in self-improvement, not as warriors. They were young men between the ages of 14 & 18. The kukson, the lead Hwarang, was considered a national figure and respected by the king. They were a religious organization, serving to inspire reverence and devotion to Maitreya Buddha, not lead warriors into battle. The so-called warrior code was actually lay Buddhist precepts for the entire nation, not just the Hwarang. It was never an equivalent of Bushido, but was retroactively ascribed to be such by the Korean government after the occupation ended.

4. Throughout this early development of Korea, the technique of fighting an opponent by using the advantages of kicking and stomping the legs became prominent, and was unique to the native Martial Art of Korea. This indigenous fighting system became known as “T'ae Kyon” (Romanized as “Taekyeon&#8221 - the “kicking method.”

The earliest reference to Taegyeon is in 1790 and all historical evidence only supports it being practiced during the Yi Dynasty. Do you have sources to site for this information?

5. During the Japanese occupation of Korea, indigenous Martial Art skills were outlawed along with every other aspect of native Korean culture, including the language, and their native Hangul script.

There is no historical basis for the claim that Korean martial arts were outlawed during the Japanese occupation. No document has ever been uncovered in Japan or Korea stating that they were outlawed.

However, the kicking method of T'ae Kyeon, and skills of Subak were taught covertly, and pre-occupation knowledge of ancient skills, philosophies, and warrior codes were remembered and recorded after WWII ended.

Who taught subak? It never made it out of the Samguk Shidae and there are no sources providing any information as to what it actually entailed.

If only a hand-full of survivors are known to have retained the former indigenous arts of Korea, it is this connection to the past that allows Korea to claim, with accuracy, that their history survived and is being revived in a new, modern Korea.

Much of the "survivors" have had their accounts discredited by Korean scholars, including professors in Taegwondo.

Amidst all of the confusion over Japanese influence and foreign Martial Art contamination, which resulted in a myriad of schools known as “Kwan” interpretating modern Korean Martial Art, the Korean government called upon historians and Martial Art experts to research Korea's past. They extracted the core beliefs, former philosophies, ancient warrior code, and the base foundation for the kicking art of Tae Kyeon, combined it all together and chose a new name of “Taekwondo.” Several of the Korean Kwan era leaders of Martial Art development also chose to use this same term of “Taekwon-do” to represent what they had learned and were teaching, thus the confusion over the two distinct meanings of the term “Taekwondo.”

Rather than spending a lot of time citing sources for statements of fairly common knowledge, I will simply provide a source if someone points out a specific statement they would like to challenge, and have verified through a credible source.

This is not common knowledge. This is myth.

Your right, Taekwondo is not one of them, Taekwondo is all of them!

My art is not Taegwondo, and I challenge anyone who says so.

 

[YoungMan]

I posted these links because I believe it was exile who stated that Taekkyon, the Korean art that many think has no relation to Tae Kwon Do, does not use any middle or high kicks. Watch these and judge for yourself if Taekkyon did or did not influence Taekwondo

And there was a Hwa Rang academy, because colleagues of mine have visited it. Trust me, if the Hwa Rang had been the effeminite "boy scouts" some make them out to be, we would have been told this.

 

[Errant108]

I posted these links because I believe it was exile who stated that Taekkyon, the Korean art that many think has no relation to Tae Kwon Do, does not use any middle or high kicks. Watch these and judge for yourself if Taekkyon did or did not influence Taekwondo

Taegyeon may have served as inspiration for Taegwondo's high kicks, but this does not mean there was a transmission of technique. Do you understand?

And there was a Hwa Rang academy, because colleagues of mine have visited it. Trust me, if the Hwa Rang had been the effeminite "boy scouts" some make them out to be, we would have been told this.

Are you referring to the military Academy in Nowon-gu, Seoul? It's a military school, not an actual training place used the by the historical Hwarang.

Unless you have any historical proof to contradict what I've posted, you may just be quoting propaganda you were told. My research comes from collegiate research and Buddhist documents.

 

[granfire]

Oh, Historic sources...the fun.

I majored in History in Highschool. It was a far cry from the pre-chewed 'facts' in the previous history books and let me tell you, I never came to the same conclusion everybody else did.

Bushido....lofty ideas, but also developed after the Samurai class basically had outlived their usefulness as actual fighting warriors.

I would guess the answer, the truth to be somewhere in the middle.

Korea has a long history of combat and war fare, not just China and Japan. Too bad if you try to find anything about Korea you can't find much beyond literature about the North and post war South. So us non-Hangul reading lay people are at a disadvantage and have to rely on translated sources, including the tint the translator naturally gives his work.

I was very surprised to learn that Korean is spoken in large parts of Manchuria...an accidental discovery as I came across a book about languages and how they relate...I wanted to check if it is true that Korean is closer related to Finish and Hungarian then to the languages spoken by their imidiate neighbors....seems to be true from what I can tell....

There is also another point to consider: The fact that you can find rules and lofty ideas in historical scrips often also indicates that the reality more then likely looked more like the opposite. When you read the table rules of the mideval knights, you have to take into consideration that the actual behavior necessitated the formulation of the rule. A rooting hog probably was more appetizing to observe...

Like the modern day Boyscouts have their share of shady individuals, one as to assume the past demography was not any different, not even taking into consideration that the social context of the acceptable conduct has also greatly changed, and it takes no time at all - in a historic perspective - to do that, much less then a generation, which is generally measured as 30-35 years. Let's not forget that male on male relation ships were also comnmon in the glorified era of the cultured Greek....

One has to be careful to apply moder moral values to cultures in the past.

But that's just my point of view, like I said, I hardly ever come to the same results as everybody else...

 

[Ninjamom]

......Watch these and judge for yourself if Taekkyon did or did not influence Taekwondo

based on the historical references I have been able to find (cited all through this thread), I would have to say that the high kicks in modern Taekkyon are there becasue Taekwondo influenced it, and not the other way around.

Here is a link to a video clip showing the footwork for a modern Taekkyon practitioner. Note the similarity to Chinese longfist and bagua styles.

Similarly, there is a Korean MA called 'Si Pal Gi', which despite the name being traced to an 18th century military manual, is a modern reconstruction based on Chinese kung fu.

My point is this: using a name that is centuries old does not give weight to any argument that the techniques are hundreds of years old.

And there was a Hwa Rang academy, because colleagues of mine have visited it. Trust me, if the Hwa Rang had been the effeminite "boy scouts" some make them out to be, we would have been told this.

Please don't take offense at the names given to explain a difficult concept. I would use the 'Boy Scouts' phrase to describe Hwa Rang (or maybe 'Peace Corp' or 'Vista Volunteer', for you older folks out there), because the Hwa Rang were different than the Samurai class that developed in Japan in several very important ways:
1. Membership in the Hwarang was not hereditary. Unlike samurai, no one was 'born' a hwa rang. As far as I can find in written sources, members agreed to a royal appointment.
2. Martial Training was not the focal point of Hwa rang membership. All Samurai (even the accountants) could carry swords. Hwa Rang members were schooled in ethics and Buddhist and Confucian classics (before there was such a great 'either-or' divide between the two philosophies), and roamed the country to help with education and community service projects. They were servants of the king and the community.
3. Hwa Rang membership was not permanent. Service was temporary. Unlike samurai (who were born samurai and died samurai), the Hwa Rang was truly a 'youth corp' (hence the references to 'boy scouts').

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Remember folks, even if the system was founded in the fifties does not invalidate that it is a Korean Martial Art that is effective when practiced right.

 

[Ninjamom]

.........

 

[Errant108]

Remember folks, even if the system was founded in the fifties does not invalidate that it is a Korean Martial Art that is effective when practiced right.

Practicing it right does not validate it in terms of historicity.

 

[terryl965]

Remember folks, even if the system was founded in the fifties does not invalidate that it is a Korean Martial Art that is effective when practiced right.

Brian I believe people want more so they can say, I'm training in a Art that is thousands of years old. Me I pick TKD because of the instructor not because of the Art, I had no Ideal what TKD was. I did Okinawa Karate and Korean Karate, which some says is TKD. All I personally know is the TKD that I teach has everything one could want and more. I also relize that there is alot of just sport TKD out there same as Judo and Karate and other Arts. Do we not train for us if so who really cares what others may think, why does this bother so many? What is the real reason behind so many Lies and untruths that surrounds the Art I love.

This is becomming a waste of time and I have people to train and training for myself and family. I hope we all can come together is a single stage and join hands and sing out load. We are TKD brothers no matter what and we love each other for that.

 

[Errant108]

I hope we all can come together is a single stage and join hands and sing out load.

Yes, but my song is 2000 years old and handed down from opera singers during the Dingdong dynasty. You cannot compete with it with your modern pop music.:boing2: